What made me realize that the demonization of hfcs was mostly hype was the fact that so many on the demonizing bandwagon were pro-agave nectar (pretty much a twin or at least kissing cousin of hfcs, made by essentially the same process but from agave rather than corn).
I've also found hfcs to have little to no relationship to my weight. I've tried almost every kind of diet there is, and I've failed to lose on every kind of diet that didn't address hunger and calorie control.
Sugars and starches of ANY kind, increase my appetite. Eliminating hfcs did nothing for my weight. Eating only "whole foods" didn't help. I just switched from one kind of carb addiction to another. When I eliminated hfcs, I overate table sugar. When I eliminated table sugar, I overate fruit. When I eliminated fruit, I overate breads, grains and pastas. When I eliminated grains, I overate beans, potatoes and other starchy vegetables.
There are no simple solutions, and I find it very unlikely that trading hfcs for table sugar would do much if anything to solve the epidemics of obesity and blood sugar dysfunction.
Whether hfcs is more harmful than table sugar is a ridiculous argument, because even if trrue, it makes little difference, because the SAD includes far too much of all sugars and starches. It's like discussing the distinctions between snake venoms. Black mamba venom may be more toxic than king cobra venom, but both are likely to kill you just as dead. It doesn't matter which is more deadly - avoid them both.
It's unfortunately common for people to try to condense dietary guidelines into a handful of oversimplified rules. The problem lies in that balanced nutrition cannot be condensed to that degree and still retain the core truths. Too much gets lost in the oversimplification process.
Last edited by kaplods : 09-26-2013 at 11:29 AM.